California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Nolan, 212 Cal.App.2d 56, 27 Cal.Rptr. 734 (Cal. App. 1963):
After the appeal was taken by the defendant, in propria persona, to this court, he then made application for appointment of counsel. Notices were sent to the defendant and to his former attorney to determine if it would be of advantage to the defendant or helpful to the appellate court to have counsel appointed on this appeal. In reply to this communication, defendant's former counsel, by letter, informed this court that, to the best of his knowledge, the trial court had committed no error in its rulings and the case presented a question of fact which the jury saw fit to decide against the defendant, and that he had not been able to discover any reasonably meritorious questions that could be raised on the appeal. Defendant was so notified and given time to present such matters as he might feel were erroneous in the trial of the case. He presented a reply setting forth certain reasons why he should have been found innocent of the crime, including the points here presented. After an independent investigation of the record by the members of this court to determine if it would be of advantage to the defendant or helpful to this court to have counsel appointed on the appeal, we concluded that there was no necessity of appointing counsel and defendant was so informed. We see no abuse of discretion in this respect. (People v. Hyde, 51 Cal.2d 152, 331 P.2d 42.) The Attorney General has reviewed the evidence and possible questions to be presented and has sufficiently answered the points suggested by the defendant.
Judgment affirmed.
COUGHLIN, J., and MONROE, J. pro tem., concur.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.